Re: [PATCH 5/8] Add command btrfs filesystem disk-usage

[Goffredo Baroncelli <kreijack@inwind.it>]

On 02/15/2014 11:23 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> 
> On Feb 14, 2014, at 11:34 AM, Hugo Mills <hugo@carfax.org.uk> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 07:27:57PM +0100, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
>>> On 02/14/2014 07:11 PM, Roman Mamedov wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 18:57:03 +0100
>>>> Goffredo Baroncelli <kreijack@libero.it> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 02/13/2014 10:00 PM, Roman Mamedov wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 20:49:08 +0100
>>>>>> Goffredo Baroncelli <kreijack@libero.it> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for the comments, however I don't like du not usage; but you are right 
>>>>>>> when you don't like "disk-usage". What about "btrfs filesystem chunk-usage" ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Personally I don't see the point of being super-pedantic here, i.e. "look this
>>>>>> is not just filesystem usage, this is filesystem CHUNK usage"... Consistency
>>>>>> of having a matching "dev usage" and "fi usage" would have been nicer.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What about "btrfs filesystem chunk-usage" ? 
>>>>
>>>> Uhm? Had to reread this several times, but it looks like you're repeating
>>>> exactly the same question that I was already answering in the quoted part.
>>>>
>>>> To clarify even more, personally I'd like if there would have been "btrfs dev
>>>> usage" and "btrfs fi usage". Do not see the need to specifically make the 2nd
>>>> one "chunk-usage" instead of simply "usage".
>>>
>>> I don't like "usage" because it to me seems to be too much generic.
>>> Because both "btrfs filesystem disk-usage" and "btrfs device disk-usage"
>>> report about chunk (and/or block group) infos, I am investigating 
>>> about 
>>> - btrfs filesystem chunk-usage
>>> - btrfs device chunk-usage
>>
>>   Most people aren't going to know (or care) what a chunk is. I'm
>> much happier with Roman's suggestion of btrfs {fi,dev} usage.
> 
> Or btrfs filesystem examine, or btrfs filesystem detail, which are
> semi-consistent with mdadm for obtaining similar data.
> 

I have to agree with Chris: looking at the output of "btrfs fi disk-usage"

$ sudo ./btrfs filesystem disk-usage -t /mnt/btrfs1/
         Data   Data    Metadata Metadata System System             
         Single RAID6   Single   RAID5    Single RAID5   Unallocated
                                                                    
/dev/vdb 8.00MB  1.00GB   8.00MB   1.00GB 4.00MB  4.00MB     97.98GB
/dev/vdc      -  1.00GB        -   1.00GB      -  4.00MB     98.00GB
/dev/vdd      -  1.00GB        -   1.00GB      -  4.00MB     98.00GB
/dev/vde      -  1.00GB        -   1.00GB      -  4.00MB     98.00GB
         ====== ======= ======== ======== ====== ======= ===========
Total    8.00MB  2.00GB   8.00MB   3.00GB 4.00MB 12.00MB    391.97GB
Used       0.00 11.25MB     0.00  36.00KB   0.00  4.00KB   

it is hard to tell that this can be named "filesystem usage". I think that 
"details" or "examine" is a better name.

Regarding "btrfs device usage", it seems to me more coherent. But as 
reported before consistency also matters, so now I am inclined to use
"detail" (or examine) also for "btrfs device"

> 
> Chris Murphy
> 
Regards
Goffredo

-- 
gpg @keyserver.linux.it: Goffredo Baroncelli (kreijackATinwind.it>
Key fingerprint BBF5 1610 0B64 DAC6 5F7D  17B2 0EDA 9B37 8B82 E0B5